When you mindshackle a monstrous creature, can you make it Smash Attack itself? If no, then why not?

Thanks.

Do mineshakles allow you to make it attack itself? If so I'd say yes.

Yes, d3 attacks vs. the unit. If there's only critter in the unit, it attacks itself.

If yes... it's d3 attacks. Would smash reduce the attack by half? What if you rolled a one or two?

I say no as smash is not the benefit or ablity of the MCs "weapon"

 whembly wrote:
If yes... it's d3 attacks. Would smash reduce the attack by half? What if you rolled a one or two?

Half rounded up so 1 or 2 would both be 1 IIRC.

MSS do not cause Attacks, it causes automatic Hits. So an MC with 1 Attack can Smash itself for D3 hits.

Assuming you can smash.


You dont have permission to use abilities outside of the weapon it is using.

(unless i missed some sort of faq)

Yeah, I'm of the mindset you can not. It doesn't say you can trigger rules/traits unless its on the weapon. I play crons and nids so I'm on both sides of this fence.

Side question that just popped into my head.

Would MSS be able to use a tyranid tail biomorph?

No, Smash is not allowed by rule.

a model or his unit that is MSS suffers D3 hits

Smash by rule halves the attacks.

MSS does not grant the model "attacks" so there is nothing to "halve."

The model or his unit mere suffer D3 hits and thus bypass the part where you could make Smash work.

 Desubot wrote:
I say no as smash is not the benefit or ablity of the MCs "weapon"

In that case, Preferred Enemy and Poisoned (Nurgle, Toxin Sacs) shouldn't work either as they are abilities of the model itself and not of the weapon.

But no one plays it that way.

40k-noob wrote:
No, Smash is not allowed by rule.

a model or his unit that is MSS suffers D3 hits

Smash by rule halves the attacks.

MSS does not grant the model "attacks" so there is nothing to "halve."

The model or his unit mere suffer D3 hits and thus bypass the part where you could make Smash work.

MSS is basically attacks that auto-hits his own unit. From the Necron codex:

"Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit when it is his turn to attack." (Necron codex, p.81)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FirePainter wrote:
Side question that just popped into my head.

Would MSS be able to use a tyranid tail biomorph?

Yes, I believe that you can.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
If yes... it's d3 attacks. Would smash reduce the attack by half? What if you rolled a one or two?

 Happyjew wrote:
MSS do not cause Attacks, it causes automatic Hits. So an MC with 1 Attack can Smash itself for D3 hits.

I agree here with Happyjew.

I just don't know... nothing in the MSS rules gives you permission to activate special rules the model has, only the ones the weapons have.

If you MSS my tryant that has a bone sword and you roll a 6 to wound, sure I'll eat the ID but thats the weapon not the model.

 jy2 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I say no as smash is not the benefit or ablity of the MCs "weapon"

In that case, Preferred Enemy and Poisoned (Nurgle, Toxin Sacs) shouldn't work either as they are abilities of the model itself and not of the weapon.

But no one plays it that way.

Yep that would be correct.
But RAW you dont get it. and my local does not allow smash (which doesn't matter as we dont have many necron players)

The FAQ

“At the start of the Fight sub-phase, randomly select an enemy
model in base contact with the bearer of the mindshackle
scarabs. That model must immediately take a Leadership test
on 3D6. If the test is passed, the mindshackle scarabs have no
effect. If the test is failed, the victim strikes out at his allies.
Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own
unit (or himself, if on his own or in a challenge) when it is his
turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength
and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee
weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses
which weapon he uses, if there is a choice). If he is still alive,
the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows
in that round of combat have been struck.”

 Desubot wrote:
I say no as smash is not the benefit or ablity of the MCs "weapon"

So would a monstrous creature without a special weapon get an armor save if it attacked itself?
That's if I remember correctly and it is Smash that provide the attacks AP 2.

Actually im going to have to retract my last post.

As thinking about it. they are still attacks that just auto hit d3 times. so you would benefit from PE and poison and ap 2 as those are passive bonuses that are active always. however you still do not have permission to activate the smash it self to halve and double strength.

I would agree, The AP2 would apply just like poison would. ( Except for the tail attacks of course)

So strength at ap2..

 Desubot wrote:
Actually im going to have to retract my last post.

As thinking about it. they are still attacks that just auto hit d3 times. so you would benefit from PE and poison and ap 2 as those are passive bonuses that are active always. however you still do not have permission to activate the smash it self to halve and double strength.

But there is precedence that you do.

FAQ allows you to force the MSS recipient to activate his force weapons. So why is he able to use his force weapons and not his Smash attacks if fighting with claw and teeth?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Roci wrote:
I would agree, The AP2 would apply just like poison would. ( Except for the tail attacks of course)

So strength at ap2..

That just doesn't make sense to me. You are already using the Smash rule to hit at AP2. What in MSS lets you pick and choose which part of a USR you can or cannot use? To me, it's either all or nothing. You either hit with all of the rules for Smash or you hit with none of it.

 jy2 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Actually im going to have to retract my last post.

As thinking about it. they are still attacks that just auto hit d3 times. so you would benefit from PE and poison and ap 2 as those are passive bonuses that are active always. however you still do not have permission to activate the smash it self to halve and double strength.

But there is precedence that you do.

FAQ allows you to force the MSS recipient to activate his force weapons. So why is he able to use his force weapons and not his Smash attacks if fighting with claw and teeth?

Force is an ability of the weapon it self.

So is Smash if a model is fighting with teeth or claw.

Teeth and claw counts as a CCW

But Smash is a model based rule not a weapon special rule.

the weapon it self doesn't suddenly get smash.

I would say no to smash,
I thought all MC cc attacks were AP2 tho, regardless if they smash

Either way, I would say anything the weapon does is what you can do, but any abilities that are always active (preferred enemy) would obviously still be used because thats what the model does

also in another FAQ it specifically says that daemon weapons dont get extra attacks.. because MSS causes auto hits

 jy2 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Actually im going to have to retract my last post.

As thinking about it. they are still attacks that just auto hit d3 times. so you would benefit from PE and poison and ap 2 as those are passive bonuses that are active always. however you still do not have permission to activate the smash it self to halve and double strength.

But there is precedence that you do.

FAQ allows you to force the MSS recipient to activate his force weapons. So why is he able to use his force weapons and not his Smash attacks if fighting with claw and teeth?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Roci wrote:
I would agree, The AP2 would apply just like poison would. ( Except for the tail attacks of course)

So strength at ap2..

That just doesn't make sense to me. You are already using the Smash rule to hit at AP2. What in MSS lets you pick and choose which part of a USR you can or cannot use? To me, it's either all or nothing. You either hit with all of the rules for Smash or you hit with none of it.

All Nids have claws and teeth and if you looked at the profile for claws and teeth it wouldn't include the rule for smash. If you look at a force weapon profile you will see the force rule. If I had to choose an all or none way to play it. I would choose none at all.

I look at things like the ap2 part of smash or stuff like poison as a constant passive ability. When you look at stuff like tail biomorphs, they have rules that tell you that you can't apply this benefit. So unless you have something like that is going to happen. The smash attack doesn't ever have to happen. It a USR based on the model typed not by what they are fighting with.

I get it from a fluff standpoint but I don't see it written that way.

Its pretty straight forward...
The model that is attacking, is still the exact same model that is doing the attacks, he is just hitting himself,
but when you have to chose any specific rule,
you may only chose to use rules that are from the weapon
so smash... you have to make a choice.. does it come from the weapon.. no.. so no...
force weapon.. you have to chose to activate, does it come from the weapon.. yes... so yes...

 jy2 wrote:
So is Smash if a model is fighting with teeth or claw.

Not all MCs are TMCs; some of them actually use weapons!

I believe the answer should be yes. As written, though, I believe it is "no." Per the quoted FAQ above, MSS makes you hit your own unit at the model's strength, and with the bonuses/penalties of any associated weapon. "Smash" isn't associated with the MC's weapons (unlike, say, a Powerfist on a Wraithlord).

I do believe that the AP2 part of Smash functions, though - IIRC, the wording is something along the lines of "melee attacks from a MC are resolved at AP 2," and the attacks caused by MSS are indeed from the MC. That will likely address questions of Poison/Preferred Enemy as well.

Here is my point.

Prefered Enemy, Poison, Smash....they are all part of the natural ability of a model. Whey you get mindshackled, you can use all of those rules (MC's will still hit themselves at AP2 due to Smash). So why can you selectively pick and choose which part of the Smash rule you can or cannot use? Just like when you force a target to force weapon himself with MSS, he cannot choose to not attack at AP3 or to not expend a Warpcharge. He has to do all it. So why would a model be forced to smash himself at AP2 but yet not have to do it following the other rules for Smash?

 Desubot wrote:
Teeth and claw counts as a CCW

But Smash is a model based rule not a weapon special rule.

the weapon it self doesn't suddenly get smash.

Yes, and so is Poison a model based rule and not a weapon special rule (i.e. plaguebearers, toxin sac Tyranids).

The weapon itself is already fighting with the attributes of Smash, at least for MC's.

 KonTheory wrote:
I would say no to smash,
I thought all MC cc attacks were AP2 tho, regardless if they smash

Either way, I would say anything the weapon does is what you can do, but any abilities that are always active (preferred enemy) would obviously still be used because thats what the model does

also in another FAQ it specifically says that daemon weapons dont get extra attacks.. because MSS causes auto hits

All MC cc attacks are AP2 because they are using the rules for Smash.

The daemon weapon FAQ is refering to the number of attacks, which is not what I am debating in this thread. It is irrelevant.

 Roci wrote:

All Nids have claws and teeth and if you looked at the profile for claws and teeth it wouldn't include the rule for smash. If you look at a force weapon profile you will see the force rule. If I had to choose an all or none way to play it. I would choose none at all.

I look at things like the ap2 part of smash or stuff like poison as a constant passive ability. When you look at stuff like tail biomorphs, they have rules that tell you that you can't apply this benefit. So unless you have something like that is going to happen. The smash attack doesn't ever have to happen. It a USR based on the model typed not by what they are fighting with.

I get it from a fluff standpoint but I don't see it written that way.

The profile for the claws and teeth do not include the rule for Preferred Enemy or Poison also. So why do you get to use those with Mindshackles?

Also, keep in mind that 40K is a permissive ruleset. Unless it gives you restricted access (i.e. unless it limits/restricts which parts of a USR you get to use), you get full access to all the rules of a USR if you have/get to use the USR.

 Janthkin wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
So is Smash if a model is fighting with teeth or claw.

Not all MCs are TMCs; some of them actually use weapons!

I believe the answer should be yes. As written, though, I believe it is "no." Per the quoted FAQ above, MSS makes you hit your own unit at the model's strength, and with the bonuses/penalties of any associated weapon. "Smash" isn't associated with the MC's weapons (unlike, say, a Powerfist on a Wraithlord).

I do believe that the AP2 part of Smash functions, though - IIRC, the wording is something along the lines of "melee attacks from a MC are resolved at AP 2," and the attacks caused by MSS are indeed from the MC. That will likely address questions of Poison/Preferred Enemy as well.

Claws and teeth are classified as CCW, as are regular swords, axes, etc. You'll find that the majority of MC's, with the exception those that you actually buy weapons for (i.e. Nemesis Greatsword for dreadknights, balesword for a GUO, Staff of Change for a Lord of Change) are in essence fighting with claws and teeth figuratively speaking.

If you can't smash yourself, then you wouldn't be hitting yourself at AP2. I don't believe you can pick and choose which part of the rule/USR that you can or cannot use.

As a side note, arent smash attacks treated as AP1?

No, they are AP2.

 jy2 wrote:
Here is my point.

Prefered Enemy, Poison, Smash....they are all part of the natural ability of a model. Whey you get mindshackled, you can use all of those rules (MC's will still hit themselves at AP2 due to Smash). So why can you selectively pick and choose which part of the Smash rule you can or cannot use? Just like when you force a target to force weapon himself with MSS, he cannot choose to not attack at AP3 or to not expend a Warpcharge. He has to do all it. So why would a model be forced to smash himself at AP2 but yet not have to do it following the other rules for Smash?

You can Force Weapon because a) the Weapon has the Force rule, and b) the FAQ gives you permission to use the model's psychic charge.

An MC hits itself with AP2, because the Smash rule says that all attacks from the MC are resolved at AP 2.

You don't get to use the "double strength" part of the Smash rule because nothing gives you permission to make that choice; it's not an "every attack made by the model" ability (like the AP2), nor is it a property of the weapon being used.

 Iechine wrote:
As a side note, arent smash attacks treated as AP1?

AP2. All "Smashing" does is increase Strength for reduced Attacks with a re-roll to pen.

Bloodly hell i think i need to retract my retraction.

Breaking it down they are not normal attacks but instead are direct hits resolved at users ST and only benefit from the users weapons special rules.

So I think i do need to return to the original no PE, no Poison that is not on the weapon it self, and no ap2.

Bleh hate doing that.

The source of abilities your allowed to use is restricted to those of the weapon, weapon abilities are listed with the weapon- or the weapon has a list of abilities attached to it.

Normally, with things like poison, force etc these are attached to the weapon ( but not in all cases ). Smash is attached to the model not the weapon. This is important rules wise because if they were attached to a weapon you would have to use the specific weapon in CC to use smash normally.

Sadly

As written, you can get more attacks at double strength with MSS, than what you can get from the model on it's own.

As intended, I think it was not intended to work that way.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Sadly

As written, you can get more attacks at double strength with MSS, than what you can get from the model on it's own.

As intended, I think it was not intended to work that way.

MSS inflicts d3 hits. There is no attack characteristic to halve.

I would say that you could because of the FAQ involving Force Weapons. Force weapons can cause ID not because they are a FW alone, but because the model has the ability to use a warp charge to activate it. Warp charges are not a property of the weapon, but a property of the model. So by the FAQ I am reading it as if you MSS something you have control over its actions completely. Smash is a property of the model involving attacks, just as ID can be attached to an unsaved wound from a FW, even though the warp charge required belongs to the model, not the weapon.

The automatic hits fron Mindshackle Scarabs are not close combat attacks and only give you permission to use the special rules of the weapon. The only time you would be able to use the model's own special rules is when a special rule of the weapon allows you to do so, such as Force.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The automatic hits fron Mindshackle Scarabs are not close combat attacks and only give you permission to use the special rules of the weapon. The only time you would be able to use the model's own special rules is when a special rule of the weapon allows you to do so, such as Force.

That is not true as far as I can see. MSS did not give you the ability to use a warp charge. You could use the weapon all you wanted, but the charge required was not an inherent ability of the weapon ... and still is not. The FAQ changed this by granting MSS access to the warp charge that the model has. This is why I am saying that MSS could allow smash.

If your assessment with MSS allowing you to use smash is true, how can you use it to cut the number of attacks in half if you only have hits?

 Nilok wrote:
If your assessment with MSS allowing you to use smash is true, how can you use it to cut the number of attacks in half if you only have hits?

MSS grants d3 hits.

Here is one for ya .. BA and Necrons against Chaos Marines and Deamons.

Chaos Marines brings a Sorcerer with a Force Sword and a Lighting Claw (He now has only 2 attacks). BA brings Dante and gibs the Sorcerer with the Death Mask (Ole Sorcey only has one attack now), the Necorns guy hits him with MSS. How many attacks would the Sorcerer hit himself with?

^ Zero attacks, d3 automatic hits.

 Nilok wrote:
If your assessment with MSS allowing you to use smash is true, how can you use it to cut the number of attacks in half if you only have hits?

It actually cuts the Attacks characteristic in half, so if the weapon itself had the Smash USR you could still halve your attacks characteristic. It still wouldn't work though, as you can only choose to make Smash attacks instead of close combat attacks, and the automatic hits from MSS are not close combat attacks.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The automatic hits fron Mindshackle Scarabs are not close combat attacks and only give you permission to use the special rules of the weapon. The only time you would be able to use the model's own special rules is when a special rule of the weapon allows you to do so, such as Force.

That is not true as far as I can see. MSS did not give you the ability to use a warp charge. You could use the weapon all you wanted, but the charge required was not an inherent ability of the weapon ... and still is not. The FAQ changed this by granting MSS access to the warp charge that the model has. This is why I am saying that MSS could allow smash.

"If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved Wounds with a Force weapon, he can immediately choose to activate it by expending a Warp Charge point and taking a Psychic test"

Is the weapon being wielded by a psyker? Yes
Did it inflict one or more unsaved wounds? Yes
Then this weapon special rule grants you permission to activate it by expending a warp charge and taking a psychic test.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The automatic hits fron Mindshackle Scarabs are not close combat attacks and only give you permission to use the special rules of the weapon. The only time you would be able to use the model's own special rules is when a special rule of the weapon allows you to do so, such as Force.

That is not true as far as I can see. MSS did not give you the ability to use a warp charge. You could use the weapon all you wanted, but the charge required was not an inherent ability of the weapon ... and still is not. The FAQ changed this by granting MSS access to the warp charge that the model has. This is why I am saying that MSS could allow smash.

"If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved Wounds with a Force weapon, he can immediately choose to activate it by expending a Warp Charge point and taking a Psychic test"

Is the weapon being wielded by a psyker? Yes
Did it inflict one or more unsaved wounds? Yes
Then this weapon special rule grants you permission to activate it by expending a warp charge and taking a psychic test.

How many warp charges does a Force weapon have?

The Force special rule grants you permission to use a warp charge from the wielder, so who cares?

Also, even if the rule wouldn't normally allow you to activate Force weapons, the FAQ explicitly states that you can, so why even bother arguing?

Because it is that permission from the FAQ that, IMO, grants access to smash, an ability that the model has, not the weapon,

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Because it is that permission from the FAQ that, IMO, grants access to smash, an ability that the model has, not the weapon,

Expending a warp charge is part of the force weapon rule, which is attached to the weapon not the model. Models have warp charges but the ability to use it is attached to the weapon. Models also have weapons, but the rule says your allowed to use it and the rules on it.

In the case of smash, there is no part of that ability which is attached to the weapon, the weapon does not give permission to use smash - with force the weapon gives permission to use a warp charge.

I thought MSS were just Automatic Hits like Hammer of Wrath with the exception that you can use the special rules attached the users weapon/s. ie. Can you use smash in HoW? Nope. Should be the same for MSS as they're just auto-hits and not actually a CC attack. Like the Tesla special rule. Rolls of 6 generate 2 auto-hits. Auto-hits =/= CC or Shooting attack, they're their own thing.

Hammer of Wrath attacks are actually CC attacks, unlike MSS hits.

"At the start of the fight sub-phase, after charges have been made, but before any blows are
struck,randomly select a non-vehicle enemy model in base
contact with the bearer of the mindshackle scarabs. That
model must immediately take a Leadership test on 3D6. If the
test is passed, the mindshackle scarabs have no effect. If the
test is failed, the victim strikes out at his allies. Instead of
attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or
himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to
attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee
weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses
which weapon he uses, if there is a choice). If he is still alive,
the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows
in thatround of combat have been struck.”

From the FAQ

Smash has 2 parts, one passive, the other an active choice made by the controlling player

The first applies to ALL close combat attacks. MSS are close combat attacks, therefore the attacks are AP2

"Smashing", to double strength, is a choice made by the controlling player. As this is NOT an abiolity of any melee weapon, the MSS player has NO permission to force the use of Smash.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The first applies to ALL close combat attacks. MSS are close combat attacks, therefore the attacks are AP2

Could you please prove this using relevant quotations of the rules?

Yes, Smash. It states all close combat attacks made by a model with Smash are AP2, unless they would be better.

Is a MSS'd model making close combat attacks? Yes, they just auto hit. Therefore, without the model owner getting a choice in the matter, they are AP2 (as this is a set value it is ALWAYS looked at last)

I am away from my rulebook, but it is one of thsose rules I tend to be very aware of, as I ran a black mace prince, so needed to explain he wasnt suddenly AP4.

The updated rules for Mindshackle Scarabs have been posted in this thread just above, which part of it states that they are close combat attacks?

sonicaucie wrote:
"At the start of the fight sub-phase, after charges have been made, but before any blows are
struck,randomly select a non-vehicle enemy model in base contact with the bearer of the mindshackle scarabs. That
model must immediately take a Leadership test on 3D6. If the test is passed, the mindshackle scarabs have no effect. If the
test is failed, the victim strikes out at his allies. Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or
himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses
which weapon he uses, if there is a choice). If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows
in thatround of combat have been struck.”
From the FAQ

I would like to point out the emphasis above: We are doing a "normal" attack, which smash isn't ("normal").

A) This may point as to why you can't use Smash attacks (not being the character's "normal" attack)

B) Would this mean that any character / MC that is NOT making a "normal attack" - required for MSS - can, by clear RaW here, actually drop out of MSS?

Also, note the part "At the start of the fight sub-phase, after charges have been made, but before any blows are struck". I do believe Smash has to choose to be used upon the model attacking (so at I2 etc) and a choice made then could only be done by the controlling player. The controller of the MSS only picks the weapon, i'd think the owning player still resolves the attack, dice roll etc?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The updated rules for Mindshackle Scarabs have been posted in this thread just above, which part of it states that they are close combat attacks?

I would say "when it is his turn to attack" means you are following the normal CC rules, and you may not shoot in CC, only attack with standard CC ruling (which is AP2 if you have smash)

Acid Blood is also resolved during an initiative step when locked on combat, yet it is not a close combat attack.
They are many different ways to cause hits beyond shooting and close combat, and a number of them can occur during combat.

I'm going to have to agree with PrinceRaven on this one - there's nothing in MSS that says these are Close Combat attacks and nothing that allows access to the models USRs - so

No smash, not the AP3, not the double strength - the AP3 is only for CC attacks and there is no access to the double strength choice.
PE/Poisoned only if it's the weapon, not if it's the model

It's important to note that even without using Smash you are still fighting at AP2.

I personally think that Smash would work if the owner of the creature were to declare it before...or after a Mindshackle Scarab Test was failed. But I am unsure of that order of operation.

 ductvader wrote:
It's important to note that even without using Smash you are still fighting at AP2.

No, you're not. Unless you have a reason?
Smash is what gives AP2. If Smash doesn't apply (due to not being a close combat attack) it's not AP2. If it does apply, why can you not make the choice?

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
It's important to note that even without using Smash you are still fighting at AP2.

No, you're not. Unless you have a reason?
Smash is what gives AP2. If Smash doesn't apply (due to not being a close combat attack) it's not AP2. If it does apply, why can you not make the choice?

I didn't say that Smash does not apply, just that you get it's effects without consciously choosing to use it. I don't have to choose to Smash to be AP2, I just have to have it.

As for not being able to make the choice, the model chooses to Smash, not the weapon.

Do Mindshackle Scarabs allow you to choose a GK Champion's Attack Stance? <-legitimate question.

But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

Do you get a choice to be AP2? I thought it was without choice. Because then Fexes could just AP6 themselves in Feed.

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

Do you get a choice to be AP2? I thought it was without choice. Because then Fexes could just AP6 themselves in Feed.

Feed is explicitly AP- and not a Close Combat attack, so an irrelevant point.

As much as I wish it allowed them to strike at STR 10 at themselves, this seems to be the best reasoning.
You can Force Weapon because a) the Weapon has the Force rule, and b) the FAQ gives you permission to use the model's psychic charge.

An MC hits itself with AP2, because the Smash rule says that all attacks from the MC are resolved at AP 2.

You don't get to use the "double strength" part of the Smash rule because nothing gives you permission to make that choice; it's not an "every attack made by the model" ability (like the AP2), nor is it a property of the weapon being used.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

Do you get a choice to be AP2? I thought it was without choice. Because then Fexes could just AP6 themselves in Feed.

Feed is explicitly AP- and not a Close Combat attack, so an irrelevant point.

Forgot that, but thanks for going "classic rigeld" on that comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 iGuy91 wrote:
As much as I wish it allowed them to strike at STR 10 at themselves, this seems to be the best reasoning.
You can Force Weapon because a) the Weapon has the Force rule, and b) the FAQ gives you permission to use the model's psychic charge.

An MC hits itself with AP2, because the Smash rule says that all attacks from the MC are resolved at AP 2.

You don't get to use the "double strength" part of the Smash rule because nothing gives you permission to make that choice; it's not an "every attack made by the model" ability (like the AP2), nor is it a property of the weapon being used.

This is how I will be playing it.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

Do you get a choice to be AP2? I thought it was without choice. Because then Fexes could just AP6 themselves in Feed.

Feed is explicitly AP- and not a Close Combat attack, so an irrelevant point.

Forgot that, but thanks for going "classic rigeld" on that comment.

? All I did was point out an incorrect statement. I didn't address the rest because I didn't have an answer.
Which is how I normally operate so... thanks? I guess? If you were trying to be insulting you failed miserably.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

Do you get a choice to be AP2? I thought it was without choice. Because then Fexes could just AP6 themselves in Feed.

Feed is explicitly AP- and not a Close Combat attack, so an irrelevant point.

Forgot that, but thanks for going "classic rigeld" on that comment.

? All I did was point out an incorrect statement. I didn't address the rest because I didn't have an answer.
Which is how I normally operate so... thanks? I guess? If you were trying to be insulting you failed miserably.

Now that IS classic Rig. LOL

Would anyone expect Rigeld not to be Rigeld? Because then it wouldnt be Rigeld.

We know that MSS hits happen instead of regular attacks. We know that you use the weapons special rules to determine the attacks effects. We know that Smash special rule gives MC's ap2 in close combat.


So if the weapon you are hitting yourself with is a CCW, why do you not get AP2?

Yessssssssssssssssss you can

Eihnlazer wrote:
We know that MSS hits happen instead of regular attacks. We know that you use the weapons special rules to determine the attacks effects. We know that Smash special rule gives MC's ap2 in close combat.


So if the weapon you are hitting yourself with is a CCW, why do you not get AP2?

I see your point and given how the rules written and the fact that you are being hit with a close combat weapon it's entirely logical to expect that they're close combat attacks.
But this isn't logic, it's Warhammer 40k, and these hits are not defined as close combat attacks and so do not benefit from Smash.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

But this isn't logic, it's Warhammer 40k, and these hits are not defined as close combat attacks.

Hmm... could I take Cover saves against them then? AFAIK only close combat attacks (and some other stuff like Dangerous Terrain?) deny you Cover Saves.

According to RAW if the model was in area terrain, had Stealth and/or Shrouded, or had some other form of non-directional cover save granted to it, it would be able to take said cover save against MSS hits.

I wouldn't do it though, that's just mean.
Granted, so are Mindshackle Scarabs...

 PrinceRaven wrote:

I wouldn't do it though, that's just mean.
Granted, so are Mindshackle Scarabs...

Well, I guess I'll hold off on pressing it then. As long as my opponent doesn't try the old "I get to say which model in b-2-b is affected" trick. ;-)

Or, its a close combat attack. You are using your Melee weapon, after all.

While it seems counter-intuitive for an attack made with a melee weapon to not be a close combat attack, MSS hits aren't defined as being so.

PLease define how you remove casualties. You cannot use random allocation, as you know where the attack is coming from. So shooting or close combat?

What do you mean, shooting or close combat? There are only 3 ways to allocate wounds: closest, random & selective. There is no "close combat wound allocation" and "shooting wound allocation" there is only wound allocation.

No, there is another distinction you have forgotten - is it closet (where equal owning player decides) or closest (if equal randomise)? Given we cannot use closest to the firing model, as there isnt one.

One is performed when in close combat, the other from (usually) shooting.

Or, its a close combat attack. Results in a functional set of rules.

It would be more functional if they were close combat attacks, but if wishes were Space Marines the Imperium would conquer the galaxy.

You failed to answer the query - do you use the method whereby the controlling player chooses or the attacking player?

Your interpretation - that an attack made by a close combat weapon, in place of your normal attacks, with all bonuses and penalties available to that close combat weapon in play, that just auto-hit - is NOT a close combat attack (oh, and it coutns for combat resolution or not?) leads to non functional rules, as you cannot determine how to remove casualties.

This means you have a VERY hig bar to prove your interpretation correct. You have not reached it.

In the case of equidistant models you use random allocation as per the default allocation rules. These are modified in the case of close combat attacks but, as stated, these are not close combat attacks.

Don't go shifting the burden of proof, as the person making the assertion that these hits are close combat attack that lies with you.

I havent - I have given why it is a close combat attack. A cuople of times now. It does nto need to redefine it as a close combat attack,, it needs to state it is not one.

So youre using random, why is that? The source of the attack is clear.

Even better, why are you using the shooting phase wound allocation process at all? IF it is not a shooting attack, nor a close combat attack, what permission do you have to use ruels that have phrases such as "firing model" in them?

FOr vector strikes they had to errata in that they use random allocation. Where is the errata showing the allocation method you can use?

Or, given the preponderence is on it being a close combat attack, having it as a close combat attack makes some sense, and allows you to continue with the game.

I am using the wound allocation rules found in the shooting phase section because that is where the wound allocation rules happen to be located in the book.

Again, you have not proved it is a close combat attack, you have proved it is like a close combat attack, and done instead of close combat attacks.

It is performed instead of your *normal* close combat attacks, meaning it is an *abnormal* close combat attack

A run is performed instead your normal shooting attacks, therefore it is an abnormal shooting attack.

I know Nos is rarely wrong, but this time I don't think he has proven any permission to count these as close combat attacks, even if other 'aspects' of it act in such a way as a close combat attack would.

My take? Only rules on weapons, hence the FAQ for Force Weapons. No Smash in any form.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I am using the wound allocation rules found in the shooting phase section because that is where the wound allocation rules happen to be located in the book.

Again, you have not proved it is a close combat attack, you have proved it is like a close combat attack, and done instead of close combat attacks.

So it doesnt count for combat res?

How do you get aaround needing to determine distance to the firing unit? By guessing?

Would furious charge effect the resolvable hits?

That's a good question, it says it uses the model's Strength...

"In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds +l to its Strength characteristic until the end of that phase."

I'd say yes, as Furious Charge modifies the characteristic and Mindshackle Scarabs doesn't specify unmodified.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
That's a good question, it says it uses the model's Strength...

"In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds +l to its Strength characteristic until the end of that phase."

I'd say yes, as Furious Charge modifies the characteristic and Mindshackle Scarabs doesn't specify unmodified.

It doesn't say "Unmodified Strength", so any modifiers to the models strength be they special rule based or psychic powers that are in effect would count. It also doesn't say "benefits from the abilities and penalties of the model's USRs" Thus, USRs that increase strength like furious charge are the only way that a model's special rules can effect MSS. All other modifiers come from the weapons. If the model is a carnifex with Toxin Sacs, 2 sets of Scything Talons, then the Carnifex suffers d3 S9 AP6 hits. No Smash, No Poison. If the Carnifex is kitted out with 2 sets of TL-Devourers, and thus has no CC weapon, he would suffer d3 S9 AP- hits. If it was a Tyrant with a bonesword, it would be d3 S6 AP3 hits with ID on 6's.

The Force weapon FAQ is confusing because the warp charge comes from the model holding the force weapon, and not the weapon itself, but the USR comes from the weapon. If GW had wanted the model's USRs to apply, they would have written it or FAQed it. They had ample opportunity to do so, and the RAW are clear. I therefore conclude that they are the RAI.

I think MSS is a stupidly written rule. It should just cause a model to do its normal CC attacks at its own unit. However, it is clearly written. Weapon USR's apply, model USR's don't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I am using the wound allocation rules found in the shooting phase section because that is where the wound allocation rules happen to be located in the book.

Again, you have not proved it is a close combat attack, you have proved it is like a close combat attack, and done instead of close combat attacks.

So it doesnt count for combat res?

How do you get aaround needing to determine distance to the firing unit? By guessing?

Pr - found an answer to these yet?

Simple context of the rule shows its a close combat attack.

It is, I'm trying to show that occams is also broken, and the attack is unplayable, playing it as otherwise

nosferatu1001 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I am using the wound allocation rules found in the shooting phase section because that is where the wound allocation rules happen to be located in the book.

Again, you have not proved it is a close combat attack, you have proved it is like a close combat attack, and done instead of close combat attacks.

So it doesnt count for combat res?

How do you get aaround needing to determine distance to the firing unit? By guessing?

Pr - found an answer to these yet?

Yes it does count towards combat resolution just like any other wound caused during the fight sub-phase does.

You use the same allocation rules everything else uses.

Close combat attack have a specific allowance to get around the need to measure between the firing unit. Have you found that permission for your non close combat attack yet? Pages and graph this time, not an assertion which does not address the question.

Page 15 contains the rules for wound allocation, either you use them or you can't allocate wounds and you are stuck in the game until someone gives up with a wound pool you can't empty.

So the answer is "no, I cannot find out how to measure from the firing uni" meaning you agree that your interpretation leads to a broken rule.

Or, you maintain context, instead of ignoring it, and instead of performing normal close combat attacks, you instead perform abnormal cc attacks, using your close combat weapons expect as normal, and the game can continue,

I know which has more support,

I use the rule as it is written despite how it leads to problems later on then deal with those problems, rather than deliberately misinterpret the rule to suit me.

I have not deliberately misinterpreted the rule. I just didnt ignore the context of the rule, unlike your stance which not only relies ignoring the context, but leads to a broken rule
So, how will you deal with it? Make up an allocation method to suit your made up non-close combat attack?

The context of the rule does not state the hits are close combat attacks, only that they share certain commonalities with them.

I shall deal with it by simply using the wound allocation rules on page 15 with the omission of a single word, "firing". It is a simple solution that does not involve changing the type of attack it is or having the side effect of changing the hits to benefit from the model's special rules.

The context is that these replacement attacks are still close combat attacks. There is no way of saying otherwise.

Youre ignoring that context

There is a way of saying otherwise, you say that they are automatic hits that are done at the model's initiative step instead of their normal close combat attacks.

...ignoring the context that the rule sits in. Preponderance of evidence is certainly NOT in your favour there.

What I said was pretty much paraphrasing the rule in question...

If they were close combat attacks, why would the writers feel the need to state that they use the strength value and special rules of the melee weapon? If they were close combat attacks surely it would simply say "Instead of attacking normally, the model makes d3 attacks that automatically hit (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

You still have yet to quote me proof that it is a close combat attack, despite your insistence that it is according to RAW not RAI or HYWPI.

Context states it is a close combat attack, and not a 3rd type, foer which you have to make up rules to cover the operation of.

Occams suggests your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

So you can't actually provide evidence for your assertion then?

Yes. Context. The entire subject is about close cmobat attacks, not a non-close combat attack, whcih requires made up rules to function.

When youre having to make up rules for one interpretation, and not for the other, it lends credence to the other.

Either way we're making up rules, I'm making up rules that allow you to allocate wounds that are caused by a wide variety of non-combat non-shooting rules.
You're making up rules that Mindshackle Scarab hits are close combat attacks.

My made up rule fixes every single non-shooting non-combat attack in the game.
Yours fixes an aspect of Mindshackle Scarabs while breaking another aspect of it.

WHat aspect does it break? It still functions exactly correctly.

The hits now benefit from all the model's special rules that only affect close combat attacks.

I'm pretty certain it's d3 hits...it's not even an attack of any sort.

Doesn't fall damage work in a similar fashion?(I've never used the rule)

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The hits now benefit from all the model's special rules that only affect close combat attacks.

That isnt "broken", aka "non functional"

It is also consistent - when hitting yourself with your poisoned massive claws, do you suddenly go "oh no, I WONT hit myself as hard, or secrete the venom this time", despite not being under control?

So we have a contextually correct reading, whcih resutls in no made up rules, and a context ignoring reading that, in order to function, you have to make up rules.

The point is, both our solutions fix the problem of allocating the wounds, but yours has side effects and mine doesn't.

And yes, treating it like a close combat attack is definitely making up rules, as it is not a close combat attack according to RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is also consistent - when hitting yourself with your poisoned massive claws, do you suddenly go "oh no, I WONT hit myself as hard, or secrete the venom this time", despite not being under control?

Well, I am of course fighting the urge to hit myself...which is even represented by a test...it's also more difficult to hit your own body hard than external bodies...and you'd think that creatures that secrete toxins would have a certain immunity to them. (One aspect I like about Warmachine)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The hits now benefit from all the model's special rules that only affect close combat attacks.

That isnt "broken", aka "non functional"

It is also consistent - when hitting yourself with your poisoned massive claws, do you suddenly go "oh no, I WONT hit myself as hard, or secrete the venom this time", despite not being under control?

So we have a contextually correct reading, whcih resutls in no made up rules, and a context ignoring reading that, in order to function, you have to make up rules.

If the hits benefit from the model's special rules, why do they ignore the model's attacks stats? It seems like you have to go all of the way if you are insisting that they are close combat attacks. You think that mindshackle scarabs cause a model to attack its own unit, but they don't do that. They inflict a number of hits on the model's unit. So if it makes it easier to understand, think about the hits as not coming from actual attacks, but instead coming from imagined attacks. Mindshackle scarabs make a unit hallucinate that they are taking hits from a certain weapon.

Why they were designed this way, I will never know. It I had designed them I would have made a model attack its own unit, but GW in its wisdom chose not to do that. And they designed it clearly by specifying that it does "hits" not "attacks" and that it get the abilities and penalties from the "weapon" not the "model". Read the rule again, and you will see how clear it is.

At the start of the fight sub-phase, after charges have been made, but before any blows are struck, randomly select a non-vehicle enemy model in base contact with the bearer of the mindshackle scarabs. That model must immediately take a Leadership test on 3D6. If the test is passed, the mindshackle scarabs have no effect. If the test is failed, the victim strikes out at his allies. Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own or in a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice). If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The point is, both our solutions fix the problem of allocating the wounds, but yours has side effects and mine doesn't.

And yes, treating it like a close combat attack is definitely making up rules, as it is not a close combat attack according to RAW.

If the test is failed, the victim strikes out at his allies. Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts d3 hits on his own unit .... when it is his turn to attack.

Simple context proves it is a close combat attack.

"the victim strikes out at his allies" - fluff statement, "strikes out" is not a rule recognised by the BRB
Instead of attacking nomrally, he inflicts d3 hits on his own unit" - hits, not attacks
"when it is his turn to attack" - at his initiative step.

None of these say these hits are close combat attacks, they say the model is hitting his unit with his melee weapon.

RAW, I actually agree with Prince Raven.

The "Hits" are not said to be CC attacks. They are "Hits" that can also use the special rules of 1 weapon on the model.

There is precedent for other attacks that happen during the CC phase, without being CC attacks (Exploding Spore Mines (I think, hat one I need to check) and Acid Blood hits come to mind.

As for allocation? As with other "hits" or "attacks" that are neither shooting nor CC, nor have an allocation method specified: random allocation.

Or, dont ignore context, and dont make up an allocation method, and call a close combat attack a close combat attack

The fact it is automatic hits and not a number of attacks isnt enough to stop it being a close combat attack.

If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck.

I do believe, RAI, that "all blows" seems to include CC attacks and MSS, grouped in the same basket?

As for RaW:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Context states it is a close combat attack, and not a 3rd type, foer which you have to make up rules to cover the operation of.

Occams suggests your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

MSS is replacing CC attacks, so even though there is no wording to say it IS a CC attack, there is no support for a non-CC attack either.
Because both types "do not exist" in the RaW, it stays a CC attack as it was before...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baktru wrote:
There is precedent for other attacks that happen during the CC phase, without being CC attacks (Exploding Spore Mines (I think, hat one I need to check) and Acid Blood hits come to mind.

I am unfamiliar with those rules, but what stops them being actual CC attacks?
Wording of the rules themselves? That MSS does not have therefore indicating its isn't part of the "3rd party unknown attack type" - which I doubt exists in the first place. They just seem like CC attacks with varied properties (Special Rules).

And then this applies:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please define how you remove casualties. You cannot use random allocation, as you know where the attack is coming from. So shooting or close combat?

Why would anything be other that CC or shooting?

 BlackTalos wrote:

As for RaW:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Context states it is a close combat attack, and not a 3rd type, foer which you have to make up rules to cover the operation of.

Occams suggests your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

MSS is replacing CC attacks, so even though there is no wording to say it IS a CC attack, there is no support for a non-CC attack either.
Because both types "do not exist" in the RaW, it stays a CC attack as it was before...

How about the fact that it isn't an "attack" at all. It is "hits". If you are so certain it is an attack, you should be rolling to hit.

Lots of things cause hits without being an attack. For instance a grounding check. Those things require the rules to give us the stats of the attack, and what rules apply to it. In the case of a failed grounding check, it is S9 ignores armor (essentially AP:2). In the case of Mindshackle Scarabs it is S:Model, abilities and benefits of weapon. You are treating it as if those rules don't exist, and thus we need to write them, but they do exist and they are clear.

tag8833 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

As for RaW:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Context states it is a close combat attack, and not a 3rd type, foer which you have to make up rules to cover the operation of.

Occams suggests your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

MSS is replacing CC attacks, so even though there is no wording to say it IS a CC attack, there is no support for a non-CC attack either.
Because both types "do not exist" in the RaW, it stays a CC attack as it was before...

How about the fact that it isn't an "attack" at all. It is "hits". If you are so certain it is an attack, you should be rolling to hit.

Lots of things cause hits without being an attack. For instance a grounding check. Those things require the rules to give us the stats of the attack, and what rules apply to it. In the case of a failed grounding check, it is S9 ignores armor (essentially AP:2). In the case of Mindshackle Scarabs it is S:Model, abilities and benefits of weapon. You are treating it as if those rules don't exist, and thus we need to write them, but they do exist and they are clear.

I agree, the rules exist: Grouding makes you roll a S9 Ignores armor wound. How is that not a CC attack of the ground against your flyer? CC attack that start directly at the "to wound" stage. Because the hits are already generated.

Or: Many CC attack hit automatically, what is wrong with a CC attack skipping the "To Hit" phase of combat resolution?

[Edit]
I amend above statement that the Grounded test on page 49 falls under the "shooting attack" category, and you resolve it as such, starting at step 4. Roll to wound.
This is also why the rule specifies "no armour or cover saves".
If this was "not a shooting attack" and "not a CC attack", then how do you know what to do with "a hit suffered"? As soon as you roll to wound you are either following page 12 or page 20.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Close combat attack have a specific allowance to get around the need to measure between the firing unit. Have you found that permission for your non close combat attack yet? Pages and graph this time, not an assertion which does not address the question.

Pg. 25
After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular initiative step, Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed.

At no point in that entry does it specify those wounds have to be from CC attacks. They are allocation rules for ANY wounds inflicted during the initiative step of an assault phase assault phase. Therefore, you can have non-CC attacks in assault that are still allocated and resolved in the same way. Thus MSS doesn't have to be CC attack, and therefor since nothing says it is, Smash rule doesn't apply at all.

chanceafs wrote:
Pg. 25
After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular initiative step, Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed.

Wait, let me find that exact phrase, and it's heading:

The Assault phase
Fight Sub-Phase
Fight Close Combat
Allocating Wounds

There it is =)

Have you noticed the third heading it is under?
Oh and the first one too? That means it is included in the summary on page 20, part B.2


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would even go further and quote page 24, as it's within the same part:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:
- Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

I do think that this covers MSS, Acid Blood, mandiblasters, etc

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
Pg. 25
After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular initiative step, Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed.

Wait, let me find that exact phrase, and it's heading:

The Assault phase
Fight Sub-Phase
Fight Close Combat
Allocating Wounds

There it is =)

Have you noticed the third heading it is under?
Oh and the first one too? That means it is included in the summary on page 20, part B.2


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would even go further and quote page 24, as it's within the same part:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:
- Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

I do think that this covers MSS, Acid Blood, mandiblasters, etc

That chain specifies things that happen during close combat, which MSS clearly does. However you're second quote is irrelevant as MSS specifically states it happens instead of 'normal close combat attacks' thus specifically bypassing your quote from pg. 24 (as made clear by the fact that it specifies d3 hits and the FAQ's mention that items that add more attacks DO NOT work). Just because something causes wounds during close combat, does not mean it is a Close Combat ATTACK. Would you define a wounds caused by a vehicle explosion as Close Combat Attacks?

So let me get this straight.

Hits caused by MSS are not close combat attacks, even though they use melee weapons which can only be used to make close combat attacks?

Yeah. I'm wondering this. Looks like a close combat attack, acts like a close combat attack that auto hits, etch.

You can be a close combat attack and auto hit.

Then again if things that auto-hit are not cc attacks or ranged attacks, what does that mean for template weapons when firing Overwatch?

If MSS hits aren't CC attacks...does that mean you can take cover saves against them?

 Janthkin wrote:
If MSS hits aren't CC attacks...does that mean you can take cover saves against them?

You are so driven by the idea that MSS are CC "attacks". That you've forgotten that doesn't mean anything even if they are.

You can't take a specific rule and override it with a general rule. The MSS rule specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply.

Consider the tyranid tails. They are clearly a CC attack, but they still don't get access to smash, Toxin sacs or Adrenal Glands.

ETA:

 BlackTalos wrote:
[Edit]
I amend above statement that the Grounded test on page 49 falls under the "shooting attack" category, and you resolve it as such, starting at step 4. Roll to wound.
This is also why the rule specifies "no armour or cover saves".
If this was "not a shooting attack" and "not a CC attack", then how do you know what to do with "a hit suffered"? As soon as you roll to wound you are either following page 12 or page 20.

Either page would take you through the same steps in the case of Grounding test. You don't need to worry about wound allocation, because there is only 1 eligible model. You don't need to worry about armor or cover because it forbids them. It happens during the shooting phase, but that doesn't make it a shooting attack.

What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

tag8833 wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
If MSS hits aren't CC attacks...does that mean you can take cover saves against them?

You are so driven by the idea that MSS are CC "attacks". That you've forgotten that doesn't mean anything even if they are.

You can't take a specific rule and override it with a general rule. The MSS rule specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply.

Consider the tyranid tails. They are clearly a CC attack, but they still don't get access to smash, Toxin sacs or Adrenal Glands.

If MSS "specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply" then we wouldn't have a 5 page thread on the topic. The difference is tyranid tails do specifically state they do not benefit from any special rule the model has.

I really want a clear cut answer on this as it pretty key to the necron army in todays meta. Imo I think it seems pretty obvious since it sates "the victim strikes out at his allies"..."when it"s his turn to attack" If I strike (definition: hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand, or a weapon, or other implement) my ally in the close combat step what else could it be besides a close combat attack since as specifically stated by the word strike the attack is with a hand, weapon, or other implement.

Another peice of evidence in my mind is that it states "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." thus saying his attacks are in the round of combat and is under my control.

I would hope that gw clears this up but it seems unlikely since they already "faqed" MSS a mere 2 years ago >.>. Regardless though to me without any other information the attacks are ap2 and benefit from normal combat protocol (poison preferred enemy ect). Also since it is a close combat attack and the model is in my control(see second piece of evidence) when it makes its close combat attacks "it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack",

chanceafs wrote:
That chain specifies things that happen during close combat, which MSS clearly does. However you're second quote is irrelevant as MSS specifically states it happens instead of 'normal close combat attacks' thus specifically bypassing your quote from pg. 24 (as made clear by the fact that it specifies d3 hits and the FAQ's mention that items that add more attacks DO NOT work). Just because something causes wounds during close combat, does not mean it is a Close Combat ATTACK. Would you define a wounds caused by a vehicle explosion as Close Combat Attacks?

An exploding vehicle will be a CC attack if it happens during the Assault Phase, and a shooting attack if it happens during the shooting phase. It's always within a certain phase and follows certain basic rules, otherwise you get stuck with no method of resolving.

How does MSS bypass p24? You are resolving hits against yourself: Model - You, targeting - You.

It's a special rule that changes the target of your attack, and specifies D3 Hits, without bonuses. That does not mean it changes the type of attack? Unless you can show a set of rules that say so?

I'll even add a more "out of phase attack": Soul Blaze.
It's a shooting attack, as the rule even specifies "no cover saves". Why would they say no cover saves if it's one of those weird (non-existent) Non-shooting, non-CC attacks? surely those just hit and wound and ignore cover and... etc (per no page of the rulebook)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tag8833 wrote:
What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

I was about to come to VS: it is indeed shooting done in the movement phase - it even says you count as shooting one weapon in the next shooting phase.
You get cover saves against shooting: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461360.page

All psychic attacks are usually shooting too: find one that does not mention cover saves? Also the psyker counts as "shooting one weapon" P69

Any other examples?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lamo wrote:
I really want a clear cut answer on this as it pretty key to the necron army in todays meta. Imo I think it seems pretty obvious since it sates "the victim strikes out at his allies"..."when it"s his turn to attack" If I strike (definition: hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand, or a weapon, or other implement) my ally in the close combat step what else could it be besides a close combat attack since as specifically stated by the word strike the attack is with a hand, weapon, or other implement.

Another peice of evidence in my mind is that it states "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." thus saying his attacks are in the round of combat and is under my control.

I would hope that gw clears this up but it seems unlikely since they already "faqed" MSS a mere 2 years ago >.>. Regardless though to me without any other information the attacks are ap2 and benefit from normal combat protocol (poison preferred enemy ect). Also since it is a close combat attack and the model is in my control(see second piece of evidence) when it makes its close combat attacks "it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack",

Clear cut for most of us: Yes it's a CC attack, but No, you cannot Smash. (i'll let others agree or disagree)

I am with PrinceRaven on this one.

 BlackTalos wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lamo wrote:
I really want a clear cut answer on this as it pretty key to the necron army in todays meta. Imo I think it seems pretty obvious since it sates "the victim strikes out at his allies"..."when it"s his turn to attack" If I strike (definition: hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand, or a weapon, or other implement) my ally in the close combat step what else could it be besides a close combat attack since as specifically stated by the word strike the attack is with a hand, weapon, or other implement.

Another peice of evidence in my mind is that it states "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." thus saying his attacks are in the round of combat and is under my control.

I would hope that gw clears this up but it seems unlikely since they already "faqed" MSS a mere 2 years ago >.>. Regardless though to me without any other information the attacks are ap2 and benefit from normal combat protocol (poison preferred enemy ect). Also since it is a close combat attack and the model is in my control(see second piece of evidence) when it makes its close combat attacks "it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack",

Clear cut for most of us: Yes it's a CC attack, but No, you cannot Smash. (i'll let others agree or disagree)

But since given that the model is your control (since the model is returned to its owner control at the end of the combat phase and thus you have control of the model). Why would you not be allowed to elect to smash?

"Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

3 things:

- "attacking normally", so you cannot smash
- where does it say you have control? You can choose the weapon is all.
- you only benefit from Melee weapons char. no USR that the model may have to "choose" to use.

Also, smash requires that you "when it makes it's close combat attacks, choose to instead make a smash attack" But MSS is "before any blows are struck" so you can't choose to do smash as it's not the model's initiative step (not even I10).

You cannot "Instead" "Instead", it's one or the other. Either smash replaces MSS (no rules support) or MSS replaces smash (so you just MSS)

tag8833 wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
If MSS hits aren't CC attacks...does that mean you can take cover saves against them?

You are so driven by the idea that MSS are CC "attacks". That you've forgotten that doesn't mean anything even if they are.

You can't take a specific rule and override it with a general rule. The MSS rule specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply.

Consider the tyranid tails. They are clearly a CC attack, but they still don't get access to smash, Toxin sacs or Adrenal Glands.

I wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I asked a very simple question - if MSS hits aren't CC attacks, does that mean cover saves apply? CC wounds are specifically excluded from cover saves (as are a bunch of other types of attacks, including vector strike). But the general rule is "you can take cover saves against wounds".

I think we are dangerously close to an impasse where further discussion is not going to change anyone's mind. I am ok with 40k having rules that inflict 'hits' and 'wounds' without being either CC or Shooting 'attacks'. You disagree on that point, and feel like every hit or wound inflicted has to come from either a CC or shooting attack. This isn't a completely unreasonable position, and probably should be in its own thread instead of the MSS thread.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

I was about to come to VS: it is indeed shooting done in the movement phase - it even says you count as shooting one weapon in the next shooting phase.
You get cover saves against shooting: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461360.page

1) No cover saves against vector strike.
2) If you run, you usually can't shoot, does that mean that running counts as a shooting attack?

 BlackTalos wrote:
All psychic attacks are usually shooting too: find one that does not mention cover saves? Also the psyker counts as "shooting one weapon" P69

What about Psychic perils. That is when you roll a 1 + 1 or a 6 + 6 on psychic tests. Rules can be found on page 67. How about dangerous terrain? What about Boss Pole wounds? What about Gets Hot wounds or failed nova charges?

 Happyjew wrote:
If MSS "specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply" then we wouldn't have a 5 page thread on the topic. The difference is tyranid tails do specifically state they do not benefit from any special rule the model has.

I would say that Heavy Bolters specifically state that they are not Pinning. Would you disagree? If not, what word would you use for how we know that Heavy Bolters are not Pinning?

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

3 things:

1) "attacking normally", so you cannot smash
2) where does it say you have control? You can choose the weapon is all.
3) you only benefit from Melee weapons char. no USR that the model may have to "choose" to use.

Also, smash requires that you "when it makes it's close combat attacks, choose to instead make a smash attack" But MSS is "before any blows are struck" so you can't choose to do smash as it's not the model's initiative step (not even I10).

You cannot "Instead" "Instead", it's one or the other. Either smash replaces MSS (no rules support) or MSS replaces smash (so you just MSS)

1) when you attack with a monstrous creature you are under normal circumstance given the choice to smash attack or not.
2) control is inferred by "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." if I do not control the model then who returns control of the model to the opponent? is it controlled by casper the friendly ghost?
3) Since I have control I can choose to use smash "Additonally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead
make a Smash Anack." (quote straight out of smash rule) So if you say its a close combat attack then any close combat attack out of a monstrous creature can use smash attack. This choice (yes or no) must be made ever time it attacks in close combat regardless of which player is controlling its close combat attacks.

Tag - no, specifically stating would require you know, actual words stating that. Omitting is not stating.

Lamo - the degree of control is stated though, choosing the weapon and activating force weapons. So it does return to control. But not unlimited control.

 Janthkin wrote:
I wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I asked a very simple question - if MSS hits aren't CC attacks, does that mean cover saves apply? CC wounds are specifically excluded from cover saves (as are a bunch of other types of attacks, including vector strike). But the general rule is "you can take cover saves against wounds".

You make a very good point. I guess I still would call them "Hits" and not "Attacks". They definitely happen as a result of CC, and I don't think cover saves would apply.

Are there any examples of non-shooting attacks getting cover saves? If not, how do you conclude that the general rule is "you can take cover saves against wounds"?

ETA:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Tag - no, specifically stating would require you know, actual words stating that. Omitting is not stating.

Correction noted. I should have said "specifically omitted". Because weapon USRs are specifically included.

You would be able to, except they pretty much all have Ignores Cover (Terror from the Deep) ignore all saves (Perils of the Warp) or you are told you cannot take cover saves against them (dangerous terrain, Vector Strike). Mindshackle Scarabs is pretty unique in that it doesn't ignore cover saves.

EDIT: I found one, you can take cover saves against Bombing Runs.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You would be able to, except they pretty much all have Ignores Cover (Terror from the Deep) ignore all saves (Perils of the Warp) or you are told you cannot take cover saves against them (dangerous terrain, Vector Strike). Mindshackle Scarabs is pretty unique in that it doesn't ignore cover saves.

EDIT: I found one, you can take cover saves against Bombing Runs.

Going back just a few months, Terror from the Deep did allow Cover Saves taken. So did the special ability on the Doom of Malan'Tai.

Also, there are maledictions that cause wounds or hits to be made, which are also neither Shooting nor CC-attacks.

Hmm I also don't have my BRB here so I can't check that now, but if it is a CC-attack and follows CC allocation rules, can the creature affected by MSS even have the MSS attacks allocated to itself then?

I'm with Raven on this one. They're auto "hits" not auto attacks. No such thing as auto attacks as you would still have to roll to hit. You have shooting attacks which generate hits and you close combat attacks which generate hits. Hits are their own thing.

tag8833 wrote:
I think we are dangerously close to an impasse where further discussion is not going to change anyone's mind. I am ok with 40k having rules that inflict 'hits' and 'wounds' without being either CC or Shooting 'attacks'. You disagree on that point, and feel like every hit or wound inflicted has to come from either a CC or shooting attack. This isn't a completely unreasonable position, and probably should be in its own thread instead of the MSS thread.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

I was about to come to VS: it is indeed shooting done in the movement phase - it even says you count as shooting one weapon in the next shooting phase.
You get cover saves against shooting: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461360.page

1) No cover saves against vector strike.
2) If you run, you usually can't shoot, does that mean that running counts as a shooting attack?

1) The thread i linked you should point you in the right direction. You CAN have cover saves against VS.
[Edit] Until the FAQ obviously added a specific wording that you cannot
2) How is this relevant? It replaces shooting attacks, just like you can play through a CC phase with no CC on the board?

tag8833 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
All psychic attacks are usually shooting too: find one that does not mention cover saves? Also the psyker counts as "shooting one weapon" P69

What about Psychic perils. That is when you roll a 1 + 1 or a 6 + 6 on psychic tests. Rules can be found on page 67. How about dangerous terrain? What about Boss Pole wounds? What about Gets Hot wounds or failed nova charges?

They are all resolved as shooting attacks from their point on, yes? i do not see the issue? They all contain wording to stop normal shooting rules such as Cover saves or Look-out sirs from happening.

Lamo wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

3 things:

1) "attacking normally", so you cannot smash
2) where does it say you have control? You can choose the weapon is all.
3) you only benefit from Melee weapons char. no USR that the model may have to "choose" to use.

Also, smash requires that you "when it makes it's close combat attacks, choose to instead make a smash attack" But MSS is "before any blows are struck" so you can't choose to do smash as it's not the model's initiative step (not even I10).

You cannot "Instead" "Instead", it's one or the other. Either smash replaces MSS (no rules support) or MSS replaces smash (so you just MSS)

1) when you attack with a monstrous creature you are under normal circumstance given the choice to smash attack or not.
2) control is inferred by "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." if I do not control the model then who returns control of the model to the opponent? is it controlled by casper the friendly ghost?
3) Since I have control I can choose to use smash "Additonally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead
make a Smash Anack." (quote straight out of smash rule) So if you say its a close combat attack then any close combat attack out of a monstrous creature can use smash attack. This choice (yes or no) must be made ever time it attacks in close combat regardless of which player is controlling its close combat attacks.

1) You as the owner of the model, yes. Since when does the enemy choose when your model smashes?
2) "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." refers to choosing the target of his attack, rather than being forced by MSS to attack his unit or himself. The owning player still rolls the dice to attack himself. You never roll in place of your opponent in 40k.
Your models are always controlled by yourself, never by the enemy. Even p147: puppet master "makes a shooting attack as if it was one of your models" Your opponent still rolls the shooting dice against himself.
3) view 2). Also "Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack." That means that, replacing the D3 hits and the attack described in MSS, you make a smash attack (and Half the A characteristic). Are you allowed to do this? please show how?
The choice is not made "every time it attacks", or you would smash instead of hammer of Wrath, instead of Stomp, instead of MSS etc... I'm sure you can see that this is not allowed. Only when he attacks using his "A" Characteristic in CC does he make the choice.

Black Talos - nope, no cover saves against VS, as they have FAQ'd this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black Talos - nope, no cover saves against VS, as they have FAQ'd this.

Just Edited, thanks.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
I think we are dangerously close to an impasse where further discussion is not going to change anyone's mind. I am ok with 40k having rules that inflict 'hits' and 'wounds' without being either CC or Shooting 'attacks'. You disagree on that point, and feel like every hit or wound inflicted has to come from either a CC or shooting attack. This isn't a completely unreasonable position, and probably should be in its own thread instead of the MSS thread.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

I was about to come to VS: it is indeed shooting done in the movement phase - it even says you count as shooting one weapon in the next shooting phase.
You get cover saves against shooting: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461360.page

1) No cover saves against vector strike.
2) If you run, you usually can't shoot, does that mean that running counts as a shooting attack?

1) The thread i linked you should point you in the right direction. You CAN have cover saves against VS.
[Edit] Until the FAQ obviously added a specific wording that you cannot
2) How is this relevant? It replaces shooting attacks, just like you can play through a CC phase with no CC on the board?

tag8833 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
All psychic attacks are usually shooting too: find one that does not mention cover saves? Also the psyker counts as "shooting one weapon" P69

What about Psychic perils. That is when you roll a 1 + 1 or a 6 + 6 on psychic tests. Rules can be found on page 67. How about dangerous terrain? What about Boss Pole wounds? What about Gets Hot wounds or failed nova charges?

They are all resolved as shooting attacks from their point on, yes? i do not see the issue? They all contain wording to stop normal shooting rules such as Cover saves or Look-out sirs from happening.

Lamo wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

3 things:

1) "attacking normally", so you cannot smash
2) where does it say you have control? You can choose the weapon is all.
3) you only benefit from Melee weapons char. no USR that the model may have to "choose" to use.

Also, smash requires that you "when it makes it's close combat attacks, choose to instead make a smash attack" But MSS is "before any blows are struck" so you can't choose to do smash as it's not the model's initiative step (not even I10).

You cannot "Instead" "Instead", it's one or the other. Either smash replaces MSS (no rules support) or MSS replaces smash (so you just MSS)

1) when you attack with a monstrous creature you are under normal circumstance given the choice to smash attack or not.
2) control is inferred by "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." if I do not control the model then who returns control of the model to the opponent? is it controlled by casper the friendly ghost?
3) Since I have control I can choose to use smash "Additonally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead
make a Smash Anack." (quote straight out of smash rule) So if you say its a close combat attack then any close combat attack out of a monstrous creature can use smash attack. This choice (yes or no) must be made ever time it attacks in close combat regardless of which player is controlling its close combat attacks.

1) You as the owner of the model, yes. Since when does the enemy choose when your model smashes?
2) "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." refers to choosing the target of his attack, rather than being forced by MSS to attack his unit or himself. The owning player still rolls the dice to attack himself. You never roll in place of your opponent in 40k.
Your models are always controlled by yourself, never by the enemy. Even p147: puppet master "makes a shooting attack as if it was one of your models" Your opponent still rolls the shooting dice against himself.
3) view 2). Also "Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack." That means that, replacing the D3 hits and the attack described in MSS, you make a smash attack (and Half the A characteristic). Are you allowed to do this? please show how?
The choice is not made "every time it attacks", or you would smash instead of hammer of Wrath, instead of Stomp, instead of MSS etc... I'm sure you can see that this is not allowed. Only when he attacks using his "A" Characteristic in CC does he make the choice.

Alrighty first of all you as the owner are no longer in control as i have shown a few times thus selection of smash is no longer your choice. Your point 2 i dont exactly understand ill move on past this point. third actually you cant do it durring hammer of wrath because its stated in the rule(which i think is important because by mentioning this means that without this specific amendment it would be allowed), and from my understanding there is nothing that says an imperial knight cant switch its stomp for a smash attack. Wow now having the smash rule almost makes sense on a knight... Although it does say "special attack" so im sure there can be a discusion about that.

So I still dont see why I can't smash with MSS
(

You can't because it is not a close combat attack.

Lamo - no, you havent shown you are entirely under the control of the Necron player, you have misinterpreted the statement

The exact amount of control you are under is defined by the rule. WHen you are returned to the players control, that means IN CONTEXT the control that was taken away has now been returned, and does not imply that full control was ever taken.

An attack that looks like a CC attack, smells like a CC attack, and as a CC attack causes zero issues with the rules - satisfying Occams Razor something chronic - is most likely a CC attack

An attack that is called a CC attack is a CC attack, an attack that is not called a CC attack does not have permission to use CC attack rules.

...meaning you have to break other rules.
An attack that looks like a CC attack, behaves like a CC attack, using CC weapons, is most likely a CC attack

Your non-CC attack has far less support, Occams razor style. ANd when one interpetation breaks rules - yours MOST CERTAINLY does - and the other does not (MSS as CC breaks no rules) that is even less of a reason to follow that interpretation.

I do not want to go into the full "Must be CC or Shooting" argumentation again, but i will simply say:
Raven your argument is within RaW yes? Not RaI or HIWPI?

If it is indeed only RaW you are following, then please pick whether you are following page 12, or page 20 of the rulebook?
Once you have made your decision, you will be answering your own argument as to whether it is a CC attack or not.

Lamo wrote:
Alrighty first of all you as the owner are no longer in control as i have shown a few times thus selection of smash is no longer your choice. Your point 2 i dont exactly understand ill move on past this point. third actually you cant do it durring hammer of wrath because its stated in the rule(which i think is important because by mentioning this means that without this specific amendment it would be allowed), and from my understanding there is nothing that says an imperial knight cant switch its stomp for a smash attack. Wow now having the smash rule almost makes sense on a knight... Although it does say "special attack" so im sure there can be a discusion about that.

The fact that you do not understand point 2) is why there is an issue. The point 2) was explaining to you that you never completely control an enemy model.
At any time during any game of 40k, the rules are made so that you never lay a finger on your opponents models and you never throw his dice.
Certain rules and certain situations let you force him to do certain tests, re-roll certain dice or, as for MSS force him to roll dice against himself.

Ultimately, your enemy is forced to attack his own unit/model with his character, but he is the one attacking, rolling dice, and choosing to smash. Not you.

I hope this clears point 2 a bit more.
Within was also an example of another rule (puppet master) which is also "control your enemy", but same thing, your enemy rolls the dice and control his model, not you as the opposing player.

I also think that many players would very much disagree with being able to use "Smash" instead of the stomp attack.

So I still dont see why I can't smash with MSS

You can Smash if your Necron Lord has Smash. Why would your opponent choose to use Smash against his own unit? (if he is even allowed to?)

 BlackTalos wrote:
I do not want to go into the full "Must be CC or Shooting" argumentation again, but i will simply say:
Raven your argument is within RaW yes? Not RaI or HIWPI?

If it is indeed only RaW you are following, then please pick whether you are following page 12, or page 20 of the rulebook?
Once you have made your decision, you will be answering your own argument as to whether it is a CC attack or not.

Yes, my argument is based on RAW. The rules for allocating all wounds are on page 12, page 20 is merely a modification of page 12 rules that are specific to close combat attacks, which Mindshackle Scarabs do not cause.

In your opinion, they do not cause cc attacks
On a preponepdeence of evidence, abppbased on your interpretation breaking rules,they most certainly do.

ENOUGH. You two aren't going to agree, and your repeated "yes it is" "no it isn't" posts add zero additional value to the thread.